Ask Mick LaSalle:
Was review an opinion or damage report? 24
Dear Mick LaSalle: How much of your job is meant to convey opinions? Your observations on “Transformers: The Last Knight” for example seemed less an opinion and more like a damage report.
Eli Sanza, Oakland Dear Eli Sanza: I don’t think of it as assessing damage. I think of it more like being a diagnostician. For that reason, my favorite time of year for movies is January and February, because that’s weird season. That’s the time of year when movies don’t have normal ailments, but exotic diseases. The movies are like patients showing up with an arm coming out of their forehead, varieties of strange that no one has ever seen before. Summer movie season is less interesting, because the ailments are typical and right out of Tennessee Williams — mendacity, avarice and greed. In the case of “Transformers: The Last Knight,” I was just performing an autopsy. Hey Mick: Where do you rank Burt Reynolds?
PJ Fowler, San Francisco Hey PJ: Honestly, I really don’t go around mentally ranking people. These are people, not numbers or classifications, so there’s no hierarchy in my mind. I think this is worth saying because I know that a lot of people think of criticism as a means of codifying art, or of reviews as applying some scientific formula or criteria to a work or body of work, and I’m totally against that way of practicing criticism or even thinking about it. Criticism is not science. It’s more like a parasitic and occasionally symbiotic art form that lives on the back of other, more important art forms. But it’s an art form all the same, loose and inexact and benefiting from inspiration. As for Burt Reynolds, I’d say this. He has been delighting people for 50 years. For his entire career, he has been a force of geniality and selfknowing good humor. However, it’s a little weird that his heyday coincided with one of the best periods in American cinema, and yet he escaped it without ever making a great movie, besides, perhaps, “Deliverance.” This is probably just bad luck, but it might mean he won’t be remembered as much as he might have been. He’s sort of the opposite of John Cazale, who was never a star, died at 42 and made only five movies — but all five were classics, so he’s never going away. Burt Reynolds won’t go away, either, but audiences will have to seek out his movies for the sake of seeing him, in particular. There’s no other reason to see “The Longest Yard,” or “SemiTough,” or “Smokey and the Bandit,” even though these were titles to be reckoned with in their time. Still, 500 years from now, anyone who sees a Burt Reynolds movie will like him. What’s not to like about Burt Reynolds? Hi Mick: What techniques does a professional critic use to “stay out of his own way,” in other words to prevent his mood from misreviewing the movie?
Carl Allamanno, San Leandro Hi Carl: Nothing, for a couple of reasons. Surgeons have to sterilize their hands and put on gloves, but that’s the normal way to do surgery. To do some weird purification ritual before I see a movie would be to put myself in an unnatural state, completely different from anybody else watching a movie. It’s already unnatural enough to know I’ll be writing about it, so best to keep the rest of it as routine as possible. Second, I’ve found that, besides fear or worry, a good movie overcomes any mood. There’s no distraction from fear, but fatigue or a lousy mood can be overcome by what’s onscreen — that’s why people go to the movies. Third, I really do know what I think. I’ve given great reviews to movies that preview audiences have booed or jeered. On the other hand, if it turns out I’m influenced into thinking a comedy is hilarious because everyone in the audience is laughing throughout, what’s the harm in that? That’s how you’re supposed to watch comedies, with other human beings.
Have a question? Ask Mick LaSalle at mlasalle@sfchronicle.com. Include your name and city for publication, and a phone number for verification. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.